OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS This case is about alleged inaccuracies in tenant data registries. Plaintiff Claudinne Feliciano (“plaintiff” or “Feliciano”), on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed suit against defendant CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC (“CoreLogic” or “defendant”), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., and under the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NYFCRA”), General Business Law (“GBL”), Art. 25, §380 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has failed to insure the accuracy of bulk tenant data before selling the data and the resulting reports to prospective landlords, who rely on them to assess and screen potential tenants. Plaintiff alleges that, because of delays and deficient practices in collecting and updating the status of New York Housing Court (“Housing Court”) records reported to landlords, defendant has inaccurately reported that housing suits against tenants were ongoing, when in fact the suits had been favorably resolved in favor of the tenant. Plaintiff seeks statutory and punitive damages, in addition to attorneys’ fees.Plaintiff moves for class certification of a class defined as all persons who within two years prior to the commencement of this action (1) were the subject of a credit report prepared by CoreLogic; (2) prior to the issuance of the credit report, were a party in a Housing Court proceeding filed in a New York State court, which had a disposition of dismissed, discontinued or withdrawn; and (3) the CoreLogic credit report referenced the Housing Court proceeding but failed to include such disposition. For the reasons discussed below, I grant plaintiff’s motion to certify the class.BackgroundPlaintiff is a New York resident. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Maryland. Defendant regularly conducts business in New York. The complaint alleges that CoreLogic operates as a credit reporting agency within the meaning of the statutes, and that it profits by selling credit reports to landlords. First Amended Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF 10, 17.1. Allegations Applicable to the Class at LargeOne source of defendant’s data is purchased electronic records from the New York State Office of Court Administration (“OCA”), corresponding to Housing Court proceedings, including eviction proceedings based on non-payment of rent and holdovers following termination of tenancy. Compl. 2. Defendants describe the collection as a manual process, in which records are individually obtained by CoreLogic researchers and then updated for six months following collection. Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Class Certification (“Opp.”), ECF 54, at 5.Because of the volume of court records and the technological limitations of public access computers, defendant allegedly struggled to maintain current records. The number of monthly Housing Court cases filed reached as high as 8,275. Opp. at 5. Several factors allegedly compromised the data collection process, including limited numbers of terminals, competition for access with other terminal users, terminal service outages, general unavailability of paper records, and delayed access to offsite paper record storage. Deloatche Decl., ECF 55,
13-14. CoreLogic admits that its “field researchers were often unable to stay current with respect to collection of newly-filed New York housing court actions.” Opp. at 6.In June 2017, CoreLogic began using nationwide housing court data supplied by non-party LexisNexis Risk Data Management, Inc. (“LexisNexis”). Opp. at 11; Ernst Decl., ECF 56, 6. LexisNexis collected data using a different set of protocols, but the distinctions in protocols are minor. Opp. at 12-13.CoreLogic adopted a protocol requiring its employees to retrieve any updates to cases that were filed within the past six months. After six months, CoreLogic assumed that the case had been abandoned by the parties, but nevertheless designated the status as “Case Filed.” Opp. at 10.1CoreLogic uses collected data to generate reports for landlords on prospective tenants, providing two separate three-digit scores based on secret, proprietary algorithms. Br. at 15. The first score, referred to as the “CrimSafe Decision,” is based on the applicant’s criminal record. The second score, known as “ScorePlus” or “Score Decision,” is based on the applicant’s data from Experian (a credit reporting agency), collections agencies, Housing Court filings, and Teletrack, a proprietary CoreLogic product. CoreLogic represents that ScorePlus allows prospective landlords to assess the riskiness of a potential tenant and the likelihood that the tenant will miss monthly rental payments, cause damage, or be unable to renew the lease.The complaint alleges that CoreLogic fails, as a matter of routine policy and practice, to update previously filed records upon the receipt of information relating to dispositions of cases. Compl. 26. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges that many Housing Court proceedings are improperly reported as active (with a designation of “Case Filed”) even after the proceedings have been dismissed, discontinued, withdrawn, or otherwise resolved favorably to the tenant. Compl. 26. CoreLogic has allegedly reported 4, 229 individuals who had been the subject of a New York Housing Court proceeding, in which the disposition was inaccurately described as “Case Filed.” Plaintiff alleges that these violations and others were willful, within the meaning of the statute.The complaint adopts the following definition for the class:All persons who within two years prior to the commencement of this action (1) were the subject of a credit report prepared by CoreLogic; (2) prior to the issuance of the credit report, were a party in a Housing Court Proceeding filed in a New York State court, which had a disposition of dismissed, discontinued or withdrawn; and (3) the CoreLogic credit report referenced the Housing Court Proceeding but failed to include such disposition.Compl. 11. Plaintiff estimates that, based on initial discovery, at least 2,600 potential class members match this definition. Br. at 3. These individuals, contained in a list, constitute the proposed class.2. Allegations Specific to the Proposed Lead PlaintiffFeliciano alleges that on September 25, 2014, her landlord began a summary non-payment proceeding against her in New York City Housing Court, alleging unpaid rent and legal fees. Compl. 31. On October 7, 2014, plaintiff alleges that her landlord, recognizing that the alleged rent had previously been paid, unilaterally filed a notice of discontinuance, terminating the proceeding. Compl. 32. Later, in July 2015, Feliciano applied for an apartment in the Hunters Point Common housing development, but her application was denied. Compl.
